Pages

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

50 Shades of Pelagius

This is one of the most important things I wrote. Fundamentally, this is connecting the bad anthropology and Christology of Pelagius to the resultant political theology of the modern Christianized nation-state. I updated parts where new learning improved the overall argument. I am not as reliant on Augustinian thinking, while still appreciating the bishop's work, and his paradigm of 'two-kingdoms'. He certainly understood the biblical tension more than others throughout history.

--

In his later years, Augustine
spent a majority of his time trying to combat teaching from a
British Monk. While he spent more time wrangling with mutations from the monk’s
disciples (i.e. Julian of Eclanum), Pelagius has gone down in much history of
the church of Jesus Christ as a villain. His deficient anthropology and christology led him to some deeply flawed views. Of course, I’m not given to
simple black/white characteristics, and I’m sure there were good points that he
made.

Pelagius came to Rome from
his monastery somewhere on the British Isle and was terrified by the moral laxity.
Followers of Jesus Christ were engaged in Pagan-like lives with little love. He
believed this sprung from the recent popularity of Augustine and his many
writings, one of which, The Confessions, had a line that irritated him the
most. Augustine wrote: “Give what you command, and command what you will”.

While I find nothing wrong
with this statement (it properly makes God the beginning, middle, and end of salvation), Pelagius interpreted this as rank fatalism, a return to
the Manichaeans, and left people as they are with no encouragement to seek
after the path of life. It was this frustration that started Pelagius’ campaign
to have Augustine refuted, rebuked, and challenged. While Pelagius was rather
successful when he had died, and his disciples had carried on his work, he
never officially received recognition in the West or East. However even though his memory is generally condemned, his spirit
lives on in manifold ways.

Pelagius taught that while
man had stumbled in the Garden, it did nothing to humankind deep-down. Adam had
set a horrible example and men have followed in his wake ever since. So the
Lord would shed His grace and return a people back to Himself. What this meant
was that God would provide another example, and by doing such, men would choose
to turn away. Thus the Mosaic Law, and ultimately, the Evangelical Law (what
Christ taught and did) would be the example for men to find their way back to
paradise. This framework would condition his use of apostolic phrases (i.e. grace, faith, atonement).

While there are many
implications to this brief, and incomplete, summary, the major premise is that
regarding the Fall. Where Augustine would explore, and lament, the radicalism
(that is how thorough-going) of the Fall, Pelagius did not believe in its
totality. Pelagian teaching certainly accommodated for corruptibility and in
no-wise denied the presence of evil. Such would misunderstand Pelagius to some
kind of Pollyanna-esque creature. He certainly witnessed wickedness, but saw it
as lapse instead of slavery. Man could be good with enough motivation, enough
focus, and enough planning. There was no fundamental evil state that Man existed in. This is perhaps more disturbing. Why would man turn to sin so vilely if man only needed a corrective example? The implications could be staggering.

There isn't much truth in
Pelagius' teaching. He didn’t understand Paul’s cry in Romans 7 about the thorough
going fallenness that was present within him. Death attacked the Apostle; his soul and body tore themselves
apart, being conflicted by confused loves and wants. What Pelagius missed was that only the Lord of
Life could turn a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. Here Augustine
was correct in challenging such teachings as not only contrary to the witness
of Scripture, but the witness of reality. The love of God poured out is no mere
law-giving, but law-inscribing. It is transformative.

So I stand with the bishop
against Pelagius, and against the reincarnations of the monk in this battle.
Another was between Erasmus and Luther on the place of the will. Erasmus
believed the personal use of will remained free and untainted, but in need of correction and
learning to be properly good. Luther rejoined that the will is not a free-floating
agent but inextricably tied up with the human heart. It is either maintained by
the love of God which is from Christ or not which is of the devil. Luther's anthropology may be in need of correction, but he reacted against a Humanist infatuation with the possibilities of mankind. Both sides of this debate highlight interesting deficiencies in the reigning theological paradigms of the day. However, Luther's rebuttal highlights a diminished view of the Fall.

Here, Luther might seem a compatriot here. However, I want to apply this Fall more deeply. I want to bring the implications deeper beyond the Human heart, and explore what it might mean for a wider definition of 'Creation. Mankind was corrupted, but so was the rest
of the world-order. This includes societal structuring and the spirits in the things man makes. I do not believe that fallen angels are only extra-human forces that we call societies, cultures, cities. However, we'd be fool to neglect that they are well
engaged in them. There is a transcendent presence in collectives. The State,
the corporation, the institution, all of these are more than the mere sum of
their parts. They are, in part, what Paul refers to as ‘Powers and Principalities’,
and they too are fallen.

A true prophet I’ve lately appreciated has been William Stringfellow. Here’s an
excerpt from his work An Ethic for Christians & Other Aliens in a Strange
Land:

American pietism- both in the social gospel and in
evangelicalism- is entranced with a notion that the Fall means the consequences
of mere human sin, without significant reference to the fallen estate of the
rest of Creation.

In my own words, much of
American Protestantism has not plumbed the depths of the Fall enough and is
insufficiently aware of the effects of human sin. They limit it to the actions
of humans without considering the intoxicating and overwhelming deluge of
power present in the Powers around us. I wonder if that is how many Christians
can speak of their sinfulness, or confess the redemption found in Christ, and
then proceed, without a second-thought, to engage in systematic wickedness.

Partially, I suppose that’s
the beauty of the mechanized, Model-T society that we live in. Everyone does
their own small, seemingly inconsequential part, and the whole conveyor belt
moves along. So John Doe only creates metallic casings, which are used to house
bombs, which are sold to a military, which are used to murder. John goes home
without a second thought, never considering he is participating in conquest and
murder. He is told society doesn't exist, he is a monadic individual that has no shared responsibility with the repercussions of his activity.

This
interconnectivity of events would drive anyone insane. But it's an interconnectivity we are called to discern and thoroughly meditate on. I’m calling for
discernment in a world of white noise and mind-numbing images. So, many American
Christians may confess Jesus Christ, but be drunk on the spirits of Americana.
How many have subjected the King’s love-command to maintaining the American
Dream? This is not mere ignorance or incompetence, but calls for an
understanding that the forces which stand over men are also a part of a Fallen
World. It was a Roman State and a Jewish Temple establishment that put the
Messiah on the Cross. It was not mere men working, but the darkened powers, and
behind that the Serpent himself. Thanks be to God that even such potent
malevolencies are beneath His hand! Even these were a part of the victory of
Life.

This naive and anthro-centric view of the Fall has
plagued Protestantism from the gate. It is a great delusion that many sacral christianities dabble in. In
thinking they can control Caesar's throne, they’ve misunderstood the root-nature of a Fallen world
awaiting redemption. In fact, it would be my contention that, in this regard, many Anabaptists are more thoroughly biblical than the Magisterial Protestants. Not all, especially those who create little
enclaves of self-righteousness in their cultural ordinances, but some. However, the Anabaptist tradition has done more than most in perceiving the possibility of corruption in power, especially when with the best intentions.

In fact, I’d go as far to say
that in regards to the Powers, much of Lutheranism is fatalistic and Manichaean
and much of the Reformed are thorough going Pelagians.

The former view accepts, on its
face, the natural order as it is. Now this might manifest in outright hostility
to Nature as useless for telling of God, but that is Lutheranism's fringe (and now Barthian) wings. Rather, it is usually taken as proscriptive for the Kingdom of Men. Thus, a dualism is
created in as much as you do your duty to God and your duty to the State. This
is an abuse of “rendering unto Caesar…”, and creates a secular sacralism. When
Paul’s social commands (i.e. to husbands, wives, slaves, masters etc.) are
understood as merely validating social conventions, they have a confused Christology. This is the bread-and-butter of creating Sunday Christians,
and a vast and pervasive nominalism. In this vein, Nazism was able to command
as it did with little resistance from the majority of Christians.

The latter view is probably the
most pervasive in America due to the much stronger legacy of the Reformed on
this continent. The idea is that institutions can be used for good, and, with
Romans 13 misunderstood as paradigmatic and prescriptive, can be put to
task for maintaining the Kingdom of God.

Without getting into my own
understanding of Romans 13, let two things be said. This passage is not cut off
from the rest of the letter or the canon. 1) It must be understood in light of
Romans 12 and its call to mercy and returning good for evil. 2) It must also be
seen under the light of the demonic images in Revelation 13 and the prophetic
testimony throughout the OT against the corruptions of the institutions of
Israel.

What ends up being done is
evil, all in the name of good. The Pelagian concept of the Powers takes
manifold forms, some that come to mind are: Temperance Movement, Social Gospel,
White Man’s Burden, Moral Majority, Ku Klux Klan etc. It is the same spirit
that drove the Puritans to build a new Israel in New England, and the Boers to
build a new Israel in South Africa. It led Oliver Cromwell to butcher the Irish Papists at Drogheda. Cromwell planned to create a pure, protestant society, but left a bloodbath. The
intentions are good, and like Pelagius, are capable of making good observations
and critiques. But it ignores the radical corruption present in Creation. Thus, a man-made Heavenly City becomes another Babel project. Many times these intentional projects become twice, at least, as evil as the parent they separated from. Elizabethan England was a paradise in comparison to the political rigidity of New England.

Now, it would be easy to
rebuke me and call me too thoroughly cynical. The
recognition of corruption does not speak to the thing being inherently evil;
rather it speaks to its original goodness. You can’t call something broken if
that’s how it was supposed to function. Powers, like men, were meant for
something more.

Thus we don’t see a rejection
of kings in Scripture, but reassigning it to an Eternal Prince who would sit on
His father David’s throne. We don’t see communities denied, but constantly
called to reform. The Lord Jesus speaks of the spirits of communities in the
first chapters of Revelation. Even the churches of Christ could lose their
candlestick, how much more institutions that are bound to the slavery of death,
and are awaiting judgment to be destroyed with the Devil.

So, just as the disciples are
in the world, and love other people, even though they are fallen, we are to interact
with Powers. It’s not an exact correlation, so don’t read it that way. My point
is that the call isn’t to quietism, it’s walking with eyes wide open. It means rejecting the allure of power. It is discernment on how intoxicating the thought of fixing
the world through such means can be. Consider that God’s condescension is most
mysterious and awe-inspiring because He is Lord of all. He is Almighty became
weak, and in such exercised the true power.

Now I don’t deny that, as we
see in Daniel, that someone might be placed in a position of power, and such is
a terrible blessing. Thankfully he persevered by the grace of God, but Daniel
did not seek out this position, nor did he revel or glory in it. He trembled,
for power is a helluva drug. The luxuriousness of Babylon was a constant thorn. Daniel is a true saint who spoke truth to power.

The Powers around us are fallen;
we must not be fooled to think otherwise. To do so would be to give into the
naivety of Pelagius. Instead, we rely, every step, on the Spirit of Jesus
Christ. We are pilgrims in a world of Babylons, called to speak truth in an age
of Babel